RE: Citizens Advisory Committee September 12, 2012

Transcription

1 RE: Citizens Advisory Committee September 12, 2012 Citizens Advisory Committee Anna LaForte Deputy Director for Policy and Programming Maria Lombardo Chief Deputy Director for Policy and Programming Draft Prop AA Strategic Plan Programming Recommendations In November 2010, San Francisco voters approved Proposition AA, authorizing the Authority to collect an additional $10 annual vehicle registration fee on motor vehicles registered in San Francisco and to use the proceeds to fund projects identified in the Expenditure Plan. Total revenues are estimated over the next 30-year Expenditure Plan period at approximately $150 million (year of expenditure dollars) or about $5 million annually. We issued two separate Prop AA calls for projects to allow sponsors to submit candidate projects. The purpose of each call for projects was to inform development of the Strategic Plan, with a focus on identifying projects that could be funded within the first five years (i.e., s 2012/13 to 2016/17), and to lay the groundwork for the first Prop AA allocations. Only public agencies are eligible to apply for Prop AA funds. In the end, we received 33 candidate projects from 13 sponsors requesting approximately $55 million in Prop AA funds, compared to the $26.4 million available for programming in the first five years. Based on project submissions and significant follow-up with sponsors to clarify project details, we evaluated projects using the Board-adopted screening and prioritization criteria (Attachment 2). Since Prop AA is a pay-as-you-go program, we need to ensure that there is enough cash on hand each year to cover approved cash flow schedules. Attachment 3 shows the Prop AA programming (allocation amount by fiscal year) and cash flow (expenditure rate) requested by sponsors and Attachment 4 shows our draft recommendation. Attachment 5 provides brief project descriptions and a summary rationale for why projects were or were not recommended for Prop AA funds. Although the proposed programming already reflects a great deal of input and feedback from sponsors, we will continue following up with sponsors, which are still reviewing the recommendations and may have further suggested revisions. We plan to seek approval of the Strategic Plan at the special October Citizens Advisory Committee on October 10. We are seeking input and guidance from the CAC. This is an information item. On November 2, 2010, San Francisco voters approved Proposition AA, authorizing the Authority to collect an additional $10 annual vehicle registration fee on motor vehicles registered in San Francisco and to use the proceeds to fund projects identified in the Expenditure Plan. Total revenues are estimated over the next 30-year Expenditure Plan period at approximately $150 million (year of expenditure dollars) or about $5 million annually. Given the modest level of expected revenues compared to the existing half-cent sales tax, the Prop AA Expenditure Plan allocated the funds to only three programmatic categories. Over the life of the Expenditure Plan, the percentage allocation of vehicle registration fee revenues assigned to each category is as follows: Street Repair and Reconstruction 50%, Pedestrian Safety 25%, and and Mobility s 25%. Attachment 1 describes the eligible project types in each category and provides a summary of key aspects of the Prop AA Expenditure Plan. The purpose of this memorandum is to provide an update on the development of the Prop AA Strategic Plan, including draft programming recommendations for the first five years, and to seek input and guidance from the Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC).

2 The Authority issued two separate Prop AA calls for projects to allow sponsors to submit candidate projects. The purpose of each of call for projects was to inform development of the Strategic Plan, with a particular focus on identifying projects that could be funded within the first five years (i.e., s 2012/13 to 2016/17), and to lay the groundwork for the first Prop AA allocations anticipated this fall. Only public agencies are eligible to apply for Prop AA funds, and both Prop K and non-prop K sponsors submitted projects. On March 30, we released the Call for Projects Part 1. By the deadline, we received 42 project submittals from 13 sponsors requesting approximately $64 million in Prop AA funds. On June 28, we released the Prop AA Call for Projects Part 2 and in July, the Authority Board adopted the Prop AA prioritization criteria (Attachment 2). The purpose of the second call for projects was to encourage project sponsors to submit projects that were not identified through Part 1, but would be competitive for funds based on the adopted prioritization criteria. Sponsors that submitted projects in response to Part 1 were also able to update their original project submittals, and some sponsors withdrew projects that had been submitted previously. At the end of the second call for projects, we had 33 remaining candidate projects from 13 sponsors requesting approximately $55 million in Prop AA funds from Parts 1 and 2 of the Call for Projects, compared to the $26.4 million available for programming in the first five years of the program. Given that the total amount requested was nearly double the amount of Prop AA funds available and that Prop AA is a pay-as-you-go program, it was inevitable that many projects would not be recommended for funding, while others would be recommended for partial funding. While the Strategic Plan will span the 30-year Expenditure Plan period, the programming recommendations are focused on the first five years consistent with the 5-Year Prioritization Program (5YPP) requirement established in the Expenditure Plan. We developed the draft staff programming recommendation for the first five years based upon the project information submitted in response to the Prop AA calls for projects and many follow-up communications with sponsors, and through application of the adopted prioritization criteria. We first screened project submissions for eligibility and then evaluated eligible projects against other projects within their respective Expenditure Plan category using category-specific prioritization criteria, as well as programwide criteria. Attachment 3 shows the Prop AA programming and cash flow as requested by the project sponsor for all candidate projects. The programming information is on the first page, showing the amount of Prop AA funds requested by phase (e.g. design, construction) by of allocation. Projects are organized into the three Expenditure Plan categories (e.g. Pedestrian Safety). At the bottom of each category is a comparison of total requested funds and total funds available by fiscal year. The very bottom of the spreadsheet shows the same information for the Prop AA program as a whole. The second page shows the requested cash flow (i.e. amount needed each year to cover expenditures) for Prop AA funds in the same format. The cash flow page is the most relevant since Prop AA is a pay-as-you-go program, so we need to have enough funds on hand each year to cover approved cash flow reimbursement schedules. Attachment 3 shows how the amount requested in each category is about double the funds available and that the difference between funds requested and funds available (e.g., the shortfall) is greatest in the first two years. Attachment 4 contains our draft recommended programming and cash flow. Attachment 5 provides a

3 brief explanation for why projects were either recommended or not recommended for Prop AA funding. The bullets below highlight a few aspects of the draft staff recommendation: Recommended programming for each category matches Expenditure Plan targets. Since there were more eligible projects in each category than available funds, we have recommended programming each category by its Expenditure Plan share of revenues (i.e., 50% for Street Repair and Reconstruction, 25% for Pedestrian Safety, and 25% for and Mobility s) for this five-year period. However, because the and Mobility s category has lower cash flow needs in the first two years, we were mostly able to accommodate sponsors requests to front-load projects in the Street Repair and Reconstruction category, while ensuring program-wide annual cash flow needs did not exceed available revenues. Requests for funds were front-loaded in the first two to three years of the five-year programming window. We factored this into our recommendation by first working with project sponsors to ensure that proposed project cash flows corresponded to the project schedules. In many cases, we were able to push out cash flow to better reflect the project schedules. In a few cases, we suggested less aggressive cash flows for projects that have other fund sources in their funding plan that could be advanced to meet cash flow needs (e.g. BART s 24th Street project can use Prop K funds before spending down Prop AA). Recommendation for Street Repair and Reconstruction. Based on the prioritization criteria, the Chinatown Broadway Street Design and Mansell Corridor Project are by far the strongest candidates in this category, both having emerged from strong community based planning efforts and having a significant complete streets element in the proposed scope. The projects that we did not recommend for funding were lower ranked and/or asking for funds in early years when the category was most over-subscribed. However, there was not a very significant difference in project ranking beyond the top two projects. Thus, the recommended projects primarily correspond to the sponsors (primarily the Department of Public Works (DPW s)) project priorities, but with cash flow adjustments and in the case of the 28 th Avenue Pavement Renovation, partial funding to fit within available cash flow capacity. DPW will backfill funds (e.g. likely gas tax subventions) for 28 th Avenue to fully fund the project. Two pedestrian safety projects need verification of project lead/delivery approach. We have recommended funding two projects in the Pedestrian Safety category for which we are working with the sponsor and/or the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA) to sort out the appropriate project lead/delivery approach. The first project is the Mid-block Crossings on Minna/7th Street and Natoma/8th Street project, which is included as a recommendation in the Authority-Board adopted Western SoMa Community Plan. We submitted this as a candidate Prop AA project and we are pending confirmation from SFMTA as to whether it is able and willing to deliver the project as proposed if it is approved for Prop AA funds. The second project is San Francisco State University s (SFSU s) Winston Drive Pedestrian s Project. SFSU is able to lead the project, but would need SFMTA s involvement in design review and/or legislation. Or, SFMTA could lead (dependent upon staff resources). We are working with SFSU and SFMTA to determine which would be the best approach and how to proceed if the project receives Prop AA funds. Recommended placeholder for Rapid Network Projects. The SFMTA submitted a number of travel time reduction projects for Muni routes that are being environmentally cleared through the underway Transit Effectiveness Program (TEP) Environmental Impact Report (EIR). In

4 our estimation there is still a fair bit of uncertainty about the schedule, scope, costs estimates, and funding plans for these projects compared to other candidate projects. However, recognizing that eligibility for this category was written specifically to enable funding of TEP projects, we have proposed funding placeholders for SFMTA Rapid Network projects (including potentially Van Ness Bus Rapid Transit) in s 2014/15 through 16/17. As the TEP EIR nears completion, we will determine whether the placeholders will be subject to an annual call for projects or may consider a multi-year call for projects that would be codified through a Strategic Plan amendment. As previously mentioned, given that the total amount requested was nearly double the amount of Prop AA funds available, it was inevitable that many projects would not be recommended for funding, while others would be recommended for partial funding. Overall, we are pleased to see a diverse program with many projects ready to begin construction in the first two years. Although the proposed programming already reflects a great deal of input and feedback from sponsors, we will continue following up with sponsors, particularly the SFMTA, which are still reviewing the recommendations and may have further suggested revisions to the proposed programming. We are also working with sponsors to obtain consistent project information for recommended projects that we can incorporate into the 5-Year Prioritization Program section of the Strategic Plan to document scope, schedule, cost estimate, funding plan, community input and other factors that helped support the recommendation for funding and will provide the basis for future allocation requests. Finally, in anticipation of the Authority Board s approval of the Prop AA Strategic Plan in October, we are supporting development of allocation requests for DPW s 28 th Avenue pavement renovation and the SFMTA s Pedestrian Countdown Signals projects as both sponsors are seeking allocations in October, concurrent with approval of the Strategic Plan. We plan to seek approval of the Strategic Plan from the CAC at the special October 10, 2012 meeting. We are seeking input and guidance from the CAC. This is an information item. Not applicable This is an information item. Not applicable This is an information item. Not applicable This is an information item. Attachments: 1. Prop AA Vehicle Registration Fee Summary 2. Prop AA Strategic Plan Screening and Prioritization Criteria (adopted ) 3. Prop AA Candidate Projects Requested Programming and Cash Flow 4. Prop AA Strategic Plan Draft Recommended Programming and Cash Flow 5. Prop AA Candidate Projects Brief Project Descriptions and Recommendation Rationale

5 Attachment 1. Prop AA Vehicle Registration Fee Summary On November 2, 2010, San Francisco voters approved Proposition AA by a 59.6% vote, authorizing the Authority to collect an additional $10 annual vehicle registration fee on motor vehicles registered in San Francisco and to use the proceeds to fund projects identified in the Expenditure Plan. Revenues Estimated at about $5 million annually or $150 million over the 30-year Expenditure Plan period. Administration expenses are capped at 5% by State statute. Guiding Principles Incorporated Into the Expenditure Plan 1. All programs and projects must provide a documentable benefit or relationship to those paying the fee. 2. Don t spread the limited revenues too thin or too thick: limit the Expenditure Plan to a very small number of programmatic categories, and within the categories focus on smaller, highimpact projects that will provide tangible benefits in the short-term. 3. Stretch limited revenues as far as possible by complementing or enhancing projects that receive Prop K and other funds (e.g. support leveraging of revenues) 4. Fill gaps in fund eligibility by supporting projects that are ineligible, have very limited eligibility, or compete poorly to receive Prop K or other discretionary funds. 5. Provide a fair geographic distribution that takes into account the various needs of San Francisco s neighborhoods. 6. Ensure accountability and transparency in programming and delivery. Eligible Projects Prop AA revenues must be used to funds projects from the following three programmatic categories. The percentage allocation of revenues designated for each category over the 30-year Expenditure Plan period is shown in parenthesis following the category name. Street Repair and Reconstruction (50%) Repair and reconstruction of city streets to prevent deterioration of the roadway system, based on an industry-standard pavement management system designed to inform cost effective roadway maintenance. Priority given to streets located on San Francisco s bicycle and transit networks and to projects that include complete streets elements such as curb ramps, bicycle infrastructure, pedestrian improvements, and traffic calming. Includes design and construction. Pedestrian Safety (25%) s to the safety and usability of city streets for pedestrians. Priority given to projects that shorten crossing distances, minimize conflicts with other modes, and reduce pedestrian hazards. May include crosswalk improvements, sidewalk widening and bulbouts, sidewalk repair, repair or upgrade of stairways connecting to transit stops, pedestrian countdown signals, pedestrian lighting, and traffic calming. Includes design and construction. M:\CAC\Meetings\Memo to CAC\2012\09-Sep 2012\Prop AA\Prop AA ATT 1.docx Page 1 of 2

6 Attachment 1. Prop AA Vehicle Registration Fee Summary s (25%) s that promote transportation system connectivity, reliability, and accessibility. Priority given to projects on corridors with high transit ridership and those that support proposed rapid transit. May include transit station and stop improvements, transit stop consolidation and relocation, transit signal priority, traffic signal upgrades, travel information improvements, wayfinding signs, innovative parking management pilots and projects, and transportation demand management. Includes design and construction. Eligible Project Sponsors Only public agencies are eligible to receive allocations of vehicle registration fee revenues. M:\CAC\Meetings\Memo to CAC\2012\09-Sep 2012\Prop AA\Prop AA ATT 1.docx Page 2 of 2

7 Attachment 2. Prop AA Vehicle Registration Fee Strategic Plan Screening and Prioritization Criteria (Board Adopted ) The Prop AA Expenditure Plan requires that the Strategic Plan include a prioritization mechanism to rank projects within each of the three programmatic categories. The intent of this requirement is to provide the Authority Board, the public, and Prop AA project sponsors with a clear understanding of how projects are prioritized for funding program. Having a transparent and well-documented prioritization methodology in place allows for an open, inclusive and predictable project development process, intended to result in a steady stream of projects that are ready to compete for Prop AA, Prop K, and other discretionary (i.e., competitive) fund sources for implementation. In addition, a robust prioritization methodology helps to ensure that projects programmed for Prop AA funds can deliver near near-term, tangible benefits to the public as intended by the Expenditure Plan. Finally, it allows project sponsors to better take advantage of coordination opportunities with other transportation projects funded by Prop AA and other funding sources that should result in efficiencies and minimize disruption caused by construction activities. I. SCREENING Projects must meet all screening criteria in order to be considered further for Prop AA funding. The screening criteria focus on meeting the eligibility requirements for Prop AA funds and include, but are not limited to, the following factors: Project sponsor is an eligible administering agency per the Prop AA Expenditure Plan guidelines. Project is eligible for funding from one or more of Prop AA s three programmatic categories. Project is seeking Prop AA funds for design, construction and/or procurement phases only. Project is consistent with the regional transportation plan. Project is consistent with citywide-board adopted plans; existing and planned land uses; and adopted standards for urban design and for the provision of pedestrian amenities; and supportiveness of planned growth in transit friendly housing, employment and services. II. GENERAL PRIORITIZATION Projects that meet all of the Prop AA screening criteria will be prioritized for Prop AA funding based on, but not limited to the factors listed below. Neither the general prioritization criteria listed below nor categoryspecific criteria listed in Section III are in any particular order nor are they weighted. In general, the more criteria a project satisfies and the better it meets them, the higher a project will be ranked Project Readiness: Priority shall be given to projects that can implement the funded phase(s) within twelve months of allocation. Implementation includes issuance of a purchase order to secure project components, date of a consultant contract, or encumbrance of staff labor charges by project sponsor. Relative Level of Need or Urgency: Priority shall be given to projects that address known safety issues. Priority shall be given to projects that are trying to take advantage of time sensitive construction coordination opportunities. Community Engagement/Support: Priority shall be given to projects with clear and diverse community support and/or developed out of a community-based planning process (e.g., community based transportation plan, neighborhood transportation plan, corridor improvement study, campus master plan, station area plans, etc.). Geographic Equity: Prop AA programming will reflect fair geographic distribution that takes M:\CAC\Meetings\Memo to CAC\2012\09-Sep 2012\Prop AA\Prop AA ATT 2.docx Page 1 of 3

8 Attachment 2. into account the various needs of San Francisco s neighborhoods. This factor will be applied program-wide and to individual projects, as appropriate. Fund Leveraging: Priority shall be given to projects that can demonstrate leveraging of Prop AA funds, or that can justify why they are ineligible, have very limited eligibility, or compete poorly to receive Prop K or other discretionary funds. Project Sponsor Priority: For project sponsors that submit multiple Prop AA applications, the Authority will consider the project sponsor s relative priority for its applications. Project Delivery Track Record: The Authority will consider the project sponsor(s) past project delivery track record of prior Prop AA and other Authority-programmed funds when prioritizing potential Prop AA projects. For sponsors that have not previously received Authority-funds, the Authority will consider the sponsors project delivery track record for capital projects funded by other means. III. PROGRAMMATIC CATEGORY PRIORITIZATION In addition to the general prioritization criteria detailed in Section II, listed below are prioritization criteria specific to each programmatic category. Street Repair and Reconstruction Priority will be given to projects based on an industry-standard pavement management system designed to inform cost effective roadway maintenance. Priority will be given to streets located on San Francisco s bicycle and transit networks. Priority will be given to projects that include complete streets elements such as curb ramps, bicycle infrastructure, pedestrian improvements, and traffic calming elements regardless of funding source (e.g. whether funded from the Street Repair and Reconstruction category, other Prop AA category or non-prop AA fund source. Priority will be given to projects that include at least a minimal level of enhancement over previous conditions and that directly benefit multiple system users (e.g., pedestrians, cyclists, transit passengers). Enhancements are improvements above and beyond that triggered by the street repair and reconstruction work such as ADA compliant curb ramps required because of the street repair and reconstruction work. Pedestrian Safety Priority will be given to projects that shorten crossing distances, minimize conflicts with other modes, and reduce pedestrian hazards. Priority will be given to projects on corridors that are identified through or are consistent with the WalkFirst effort or successor efforts (e.g., pedestrian master plan). Priority will be given to projects that can demonstrate a reduction in a maintenance backlog for a particular project type (e.g., curb ramps, sidewalks, etc.). Priority will be given to infrastructure projects that improve access to transit and/or schools. M:\CAC\Meetings\Memo to CAC\2012\09-Sep 2012\Prop AA\Prop AA ATT 2.docx Page 2 of 3

9 Attachment 2. and Mobility s Priority will be given to projects that support existing or proposed rapid transit, including projects identified in transit performance plans or programs such as the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency s Transit Effectiveness Program and Rapid Network initiative. Priority will be given to projects that increase transit accessibility and reliability (e.g. stop improvements, transit stop consolidation and relocation, transit signal priority, traffic signal upgrades, travel information improvements, wayfinding signs, and bicycle parking), including regional transit connections. Priority will be given to travel demand management projects that aim to reduce auto congestion and are aligned with San Francisco s citywide travel demand management goals. M:\CAC\Meetings\Memo to CAC\2012\09-Sep 2012\Prop AA\Prop AA ATT 2.docx Page 3 of 3

10 Attachment 3. Prop AA Candidate Projects Table 1 - Requested Programming Project Name 1 Phase Sponsor / / / / /17 5-Year Total Street Repair and Reconstruction Funds Available in Category $ 4,358,888 $ 2,210,086 $ 2,210,086 $ 2,210,086 $ 2,210,086 $ 13,199,232 9th St Pavement Renovation CON DPW $ 2,216,627 $ 2,216,627 28th Ave Pavement Renovation CON DPW $ 2,142,373 $ 2,142,373 Chinatown Broadway St Design DES DPW $ 650,000 $ 650,000 Mansell Corridor Project DES/CON RPD $ 960,000 $ 2,850,000 $ 3,810,000 McAllister St Pavement Renovation CON DPW $ 2,210,000 $ 2,210,000 Dolores St Pavement Renovation CON DPW $ 2,210,000 $ 2,210,000 Waller St Pavement Renovation CON DPW $ 2,210,000 $ 2,210,000 Brannan St Pavement Renovation CON DPW $ 2,210,000 $ 2,210,000 Subtotal Requested $ 5,969,000 $ 5,060,000 $ 2,210,000 $ 2,210,000 $ 2,210,000 $ 17,659,000 (Over)/Under $ (1,610,113) $ (2,849,914) $ 86 $ 86 $ 86 $ (4,459,769) Cumulative Remaining $ (1,610,113) $ (4,460,027) $ (4,459,941) $ (4,459,855) $ (4,459,769) $ (4,459,769) Category % Allocation 3 50% Requested % 32% Pedestrian Safety Funds Available in Category $ 2,179,444 $ 1,105,043 $ 1,105,043 $ 1,105,043 $ 1,105,043 $ 6,599,616 Arguello Gap Closure DES/CON Presidio $ 75,000 $ 275,000 $ 350,000 Mason Green DES/CON RPD $ 46,000 $ 394,000 $ 440,000 Mid-Block Crossings on Minna/7th & Natoma/8th St DES/CON SFCTA $ 110,000 $ 620,000 $ 730,000 Minna/Natoma Alleyway s DES/CON SFCTA $ 200,000 $ 1,100,000 $ 1,300,000 Ringold St Shared Street DES/CON SFCTA $ 235,000 $ 1,335,000 $ 1,570,000 Ellis/Eddy Sts Traffic Calming - Phase 2 DES/CON SFCTA $ 1,220,532 $ 5,269,915 $ 6,490,447 Franklin St Pedestrian Signals DES/CON SFMTA $ 1,550,000 $ 1,550,000 Pedestrian Countdown Signals CON SFMTA $ 1,800,000 $ 1,800,000 Winston Drive Pedestrian s DES/CON SFSU $ 575,000 $ 355,000 $ 250,000 $ 250,000 $ 250,000 $ 1,680,000 McAllister St Campus Streetscape DES UC Hastings $ 1,670,000 $ 1,670,000 Gough St Pedestrian Signals DES/CON SFMTA $ 550,000 $ 550,000 Polk St Pedestrian Signals DES SFMTA $ 450,000 $ 450,000 Pedestrian Beacons DES/CON SFMTA $ 750,000 $ 750,000 Subtotal Requested $ 7,481,532 $ 9,348,915 $ 1,250,000 $ 1,000,000 $ 250,000 $ 19,330,447 (Over)/Under $ (5,302,088) $ (8,243,872) $ (144,957) $ 105,043 $ 855,043 $ (12,730,831) Cumulative Remaining $ (5,302,088) $ (13,545,960) $ (13,690,917) $ (13,585,874) $ (12,730,831) $ (12,730,831) Category % Allocation 3 25% Requested % 35% and Mobility s Funds Available in Category $ 2,179,444 $ 1,105,043 $ 1,105,043 $ 1,105,043 $ 1,105,043 $ 6,599,616 24th St Mission BART Plaza & Pedestrian s CON BART $ 1,217,811 $ 1,217,811 Civic Center BART/Muni Bike Station CON BART $ 350,000 $ 350,000 Phelan Loop Pedestrian Connector DES/CON City College $ 65,000 $ 872,000 $ 937,000 Wayfinding and Transit Info PRO City College $ 77,315 $ 77,315 Hunters View Phase II: Transit Connection DES, CON MOH $ 195,000 $ 1,649,994 $ 1,844,994 Ferry Building Area Secured Bike Parking PRO Port $ 47,600 $ 47,600 School TDM Toolkits CON SFE $ 408,750 $ 429,188 $ 450,647 $ 473,179 $ 496,838 $ 2,258,602 Ferry Gangways and Piers CON GGBHTD $ 1,000,000 $ 1,000, Mission TEP TTRP DES/CON SFMTA $ 274,600 $ 1,142,450 $ 1,417,050 8x-Bayshore Express TEP TTRP DES/CON SFMTA $ 681,000 $ 1,473,250 $ 2,154,250 Van Ness BRT DES/CON SFCTA $ 2,500,000 $ 2,500,000 $ 5,000,000 5-Fulton TEP TTRP DES/CON SFMTA $ 514,000 $ 1,670,500 $ 2,184,500 Subtotal Requested $ 2,361,476 $ 4,225,782 $ 2,274,097 $ 4,960,429 $ 4,667,338 $ 18,489,122 (Over)/Under $ (182,032) $ (3,120,739) $ (1,169,054) $ (3,855,386) $ (3,562,295) $ (11,889,506) Cumulative Remaining $ (182,032) $ (3,302,771) $ (4,471,825) $ (8,327,211) $ (11,889,506) $ (11,889,506) Category % Allocation 3 25% Requested % 33% Total Requested $ 15,812,008 $ 18,634,697 $ 5,734,097 $ 8,170,429 $ 7,127,338 $ 55,478,569 (Over)/Under $ (7,094,233) $ (14,214,525) $ (1,313,925) $ (3,750,257) $ (2,707,166) $ (29,080,106) Cumulative $ (7,094,233) $ (21,308,758) $ (22,622,683) $ (26,372,940) $ (29,080,106) Total Available Funds $ 8,717,775 $ 4,420,172 $ 4,420,172 $ 4,420,172 $ 4,420,172 $ 26,398,463 1 Projects are not listed in priority order. Projects are sorted by in which Prop AA funds are needed, then by Sponsor, then by Project Name. 2 Sponsor abbreviations include: Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART); Department of Public Works (DPW); the Planning Department (Planning); the Golden Gate Bridge, Highway, and Transportation District (GGBHTD); Mayor's Office of Housing (MOH); Recreation and Parks Department (RPD); University of California, Hastings (UC Hastings); the Department of the Environment (SFE); the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA); San Francisco State University (SFSU); and San Francisco Unified School District (SFUSD). 3 The percentage allocation of vehicle registration fee revenues to each programmatic category is 50% (Street Repair and Reconstruction), 25% (Pedestrian Safety), and 25% ( and Mobility s) over the life of the Expenditure Plan. The Authority is not limited to programming funds to each category in these proportions annually and can instead program funds taking into consideration other factors such as project readiness and policy considerations (e.g. in the first five years the Authority Board may wish to focus on funding projects from a certain category). M:\CAC\Meetings\Memo to CAC\2012\09-Sep 2012\Prop AA\Prop AA ATT 3 Print 11x17 1

11 Attachment 3. Prop AA Candidate Projects Table 2 - Requested Cash Flow Project Name 1 Phase Sponsor / / / / /17 5-Year Total Street Repair and Reconstruction Funds Available in Category $ 4,358,888 $ 2,210,086 $ 2,210,086 $ 2,210,086 $ 2,210,086 $ 13,199,232 9th St Pavement Renovation CON DPW $ 2,216,627 $ 2,216,627 28th Ave Pavement Renovation CON DPW $ 2,142,373 $ 2,142,373 Chinatown Broadway St Design DES DPW $ 650,000 $ 650,000 Mansell Corridor Project DES/CON RPD $ 960,000 $ 2,850,000 $ 3,810,000 McAllister St Pavement Renovation CON DPW $ 2,210,000 $ 2,210,000 Dolores St Pavement Renovation CON DPW $ 2,210,000 $ 2,210,000 Waller St Pavement Renovation CON DPW $ 2,210,000 $ 2,210,000 Brannan St Pavement Renovation CON DPW $ 2,210,000 $ 2,210,000 Subtotal Requested $ 5,969,000 $ 5,060,000 $ 2,210,000 $ 2,210,000 $ 2,210,000 $ 17,659,000 (Over)/Under $ (1,610,113) $ (2,849,914) $ 86 $ 86 $ 86 $ (4,459,769) Cumulative Remaining $ (1,610,113) $ (4,460,027) $ (4,459,941) $ (4,459,855) $ (4,459,769) $ (4,459,769) Category % Allocation 3 50% Requested % 32% Pedestrian Safety Funds Available in Category $ 2,179,444 $ 1,105,043 $ 1,105,043 $ 1,105,043 $ 1,105,043 $ 6,599,616 Arguello Gap Closure DES/CON Presidio $ 75,000 $ 275,000 $ 350,000 Mason Green DES/CON RPD $ 46,000 $ 394,000 $ 440,000 Mid-Block Crossings on Minna/7th & Natoma/8th DES/CON SFCTA $ 55,000 $ 365,000 $ 310,000 $ 730,000 Minna/Natoma Alleyway s DES/CON SFCTA $ 100,000 $ 650,000 $ 550,000 $ 1,300,000 Ringold St Shared Street DES/CON SFCTA $ 115,000 $ 788,000 $ 667,000 $ 1,570,000 Ellis/Eddy Sts Traffic Calming - Phase 2 DES/CON SFCTA $ 1,220,532 $ 5,269,915 $ 6,490,447 Franklin St Pedestrian Signals DES/CON SFMTA $ 1,135,000 $ 415,000 $ 1,550,000 Pedestrian Countdown Signals CON SFMTA $ 1,800,000 $ 1,800,000 Winston Drive Pedestrian s DES/CON SFSU $ 575,000 $ 355,000 $ 250,000 $ 250,000 $ 250,000 $ 1,680,000 McAllister St Campus Streetscape DES UC Hastings $ 1,670,000 $ 1,670,000 Gough St Pedestrian Signals DES/CON SFMTA $ 330,000 $ 220,000 $ 550,000 Polk St Pedestrian Signals DES SFMTA $ 450,000 $ 450,000 Pedestrian Beacons DES/CON SFMTA $ 750,000 $ 750,000 Subtotal Requested $ 6,791,532 $ 8,511,915 $ 2,557,000 $ 1,220,000 $ 250,000 $ 19,330,447 (Over)/Under $ (4,612,088) $ (7,406,872) $ (1,451,957) $ (114,957) $ 855,043 $ (12,730,831) Cumulative Remaining $ (4,612,088) $ (12,018,960) $ (13,470,917) $ (13,585,874) $ (12,730,831) $ (12,730,831) Category % Allocation 3 25% Requested % 35% and Mobility s Funds Available in Category $ 2,179,444 $ 1,105,043 $ 1,105,043 $ 1,105,043 $ 1,105,043 $ 6,599,616 24th St Mission BART Plaza and Pedestrian s CON BART $ 886,797 $ 331,014 $ 1,217,811 Civic Center BART/Muni Bike Station CON BART $ 350,000 $ 350,000 Phelan Loop Pedestrian Connector DES/CON City College $ 65,000 $ 872,000 $ 937,000 Wayfinding and Transit Info PRO City College $ 43,535 $ 33,780 $ 77,315 Hunters View Phase II: Transit Connection DES/CON MOH $ 97,500 $ 1,417,495 $ 329,999 $ 1,844,994 Ferry Building Area Secured Bike Parking PRO Port $ 47,600 $ 47,600 School TDM Toolkits CON SFE $ 408,750 $ 429,188 $ 450,647 $ 473,179 $ 496,838 $ 2,258,602 Ferry Gangways and Piers CON GGBHTD $ 400,000 $ 300,000 $ 300,000 $ 1,000, Mission TEP TTRP DES/CON SFMTA $ 274,600 $ 1,142,450 $ 1,417,050 8x-Bayshore Express TEP TTRP DES/CON SFMTA $ 681,000 $ 1,473,250 $ 2,154,250 Van Ness BRT DES/CON SFCTA $ 2,500,000 $ 2,500,000 $ 5,000,000 5-Fulton TEP TTRP DES/CON SFMTA $ 514,000 $ 1,670,500 $ 2,184,500 Subtotal Requested $ 1,012,385 $ 4,313,860 $ 3,235,110 $ 5,260,429 $ 4,667,338 $ 18,489,122 (Over)/Under $ 1,167,059 $ (3,208,817) $ (2,130,067) $ (4,155,386) $ (3,562,295) $ (11,889,506) Cumulative Remaining $ 1,167,059 $ (2,041,758) $ (4,171,825) $ (8,327,211) $ (11,889,506) $ (11,889,506) See Table 1 for footnotes. Category % Allocation 3 25% Requested % 33% Total Requested $ 13,772,917 $ 17,885,775 $ 8,002,110 $ 8,690,429 $ 7,127,338 $ 55,478,569 (Over)/Under $ (5,055,142) $ (13,465,603) $ (3,581,938) $ (4,270,257) $ (2,707,166) $ (29,080,106) Cumulative $ (5,055,142) $ (18,520,745) $ (22,102,683) $ (26,372,940) $ (29,080,106) Total Available Funds $ 8,717,775 $ 4,420,172 $ 4,420,172 $ 4,420,172 $ 4,420,172 $ 26,398,463 M:\CAC\Meetings\Memo to CAC\2012\09-Sep 2012\Prop AA\Prop AA ATT 3 Print 11x17 2

12 Attachment 4. Prop AA Strategic Plan Table 1 - Draft Recommended Programming Project Name 1 Phase Sponsor / / / / /17 5-Year Total Street Repair and Reconstruction Funds Available in Category $ 4,358,888 $ 2,210,086 $ 2,210,086 $ 2,210,086 $ 2,210,086 $ 13,199,232 9th St Pavement Renovation CON DPW $ 2,216,627 $ 2,216,627 28th Ave Pavement Renovation CON DPW $ 1,174,260 $ 1,174,260 Chinatown Broadway St DES DPW $ 650,000 $ 650,000 Mansell Corridor Project DES/CON RPD $ 202,228 $ 2,325,624 $ 2,527,852 McAllister St Pavement Renovation CON DPW $ 2,210,000 $ 2,210,000 Waller St Pavement Renovation CON DPW $ 2,210,000 $ 2,210,000 Brannan St Pavement Renovation CON DPW $ 2,210,000 $ 2,210,000 Pedestrian Safety Subtotal Recommended $ 4,040,887 $ 2,412,228 $ 2,325,624 $ 2,210,000 $ 2,210,000 $ 13,198,739 (Over)/Under $ 318,001 $ (202,142) $ (115,538) $ 86 $ 86 $ 493 Cumulative Remaining $ 318,001 $ 115,859 $ 321 $ 407 $ 493 $ 493 Category % Allocation 3 50% Recommended % 50% Funds Available in Category $ 2,179,444 $ 1,105,043 $ 1,105,043 $ 1,105,043 $ 1,105,043 $ 6,599,616 Arguello Gap Closure DES/CON Presidio $ 350,000 $ 350,000 Mid-Block Crossings on Minna/7th & Natoma/8th DES/CON SFCTA $ 730,000 $ 730,000 Franklin St Pedestrian Signals DES/CON SFMTA $ 1,550,000 $ 1,550,000 Pedestrian Countdown Signals CON SFMTA $ 1,683,000 $ 1,683,000 Winston Drive Pedestrian s DES/CON SFSU $ 1,150,000 $ 1,150,000 McAllister St Campus Streetscape DES/CON UC Hastings $ 800,000 $ 800,000 Gough St Pedestrian Signals DES/CON SFMTA $ 337,000 $ 337,000 Subtotal Recommended $ 5,463,000 $ - $ 800,000 $ 337,000 $ - $ 6,600,000 (Over)/Under $ (3,283,556) $ 1,105,043 $ 305,043 $ 768,043 $ 1,105,043 $ (384) Cumulative Remaining $ (3,283,556) $ (2,178,513) $ (1,873,470) $ (1,105,427) $ (384) $ (384) Category % Allocation 3 25% Recommended % 25% and Mobility s Funds Available in Category $ 2,179,444 $ 1,105,043 $ 1,105,043 $ 1,105,043 $ 1,105,043 $ 6,599,616 Civic Center BART/Muni Bike Station CON BART $ 248,000 $ 248,000 Phelan Loop Pedestrian Connector DES/CON City College $ 937,000 $ 937,000 Hunters View Phase II: Transit Connection DES/CON MOH $ 1,844,994 $ 1,844,994 24th St Mission BART Plaza and Pedestrian s CON BART $ 1,217,811 $ 1,217,811 Rapid Network Placeholder DES/CON SFMTA $ 287,000 $ 965,000 $ 1,099,919 $ 2,351,919 Subtotal Recommended $ 3,029,994 $ 1,217,811 $ 287,000 $ 965,000 $ 1,099,919 $ 6,599,724 (Over)/Under $ (850,550) $ (112,768) $ 818,043 $ 140,043 $ 5,124 $ (108) Cumulative Remaining $ (850,550) $ (963,318) $ (145,275) $ (5,232) $ (108) $ (108) Category % Allocation 3 25% Recommended % 25% Total Recommended $ 12,533,881 $ 3,630,039 $ 3,412,624 $ 3,512,000 $ 3,309,919 $ 26,398,463 (Over)/Under $ (3,816,106) $ 790,133 $ 1,007,548 $ 908,172 $ 1,110,253 $ - Cumulative $ (3,816,106) $ (3,025,973) $ (2,018,425) $ (1,110,253) $ - Total Available Funds $ 8,717,775 $ 4,420,172 $ 4,420,172 $ 4,420,172 $ 4,420,172 $ 26,398,463 1 Projects are not listed in priority order. Projects are sorted by in which Prop AA funds are needed, then by Sponsor, then by Project Name. 2 Sponsor abbreviations include: Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART); Department of Public Works (DPW); Mayor's Office of Housing (MOH); Recreation and Parks Department (RPD); University of California, Hastings (UC Hastings); the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA); and San Francisco State University (SFSU). 3 The percentage allocation of vehicle registration fee revenues to each programmatic category is 50% (Street Repair and Reconstruction), 25% (Pedestrian Safety), and 25% ( and Mobility s) over the life of the Expenditure Plan. The Authority is not limited to programming funds to each category in these proportions annually and can instead program funds taking into consideration other factors such as project readiness and policy considerations (e.g. in the first five years the Authority Board may wish to focus on funding projects from a certain category). M:\CAC\Meetings\Memo to CAC\2012\09-Sep 2012\Prop AA\Prop AA ATT 4 Print 11x17 1

13 Attachment 4. Prop AA Strategic Plan Table 2 - Draft Recommended Cash Flow Project Name 1 Phase Sponsor / / / / /17 5-Year Total Street Repair and Reconstruction Funds Available in Category $ 4,358,888 $ 2,210,086 $ 2,210,086 $ 2,210,086 $ 2,210,086 $ 13,199,232 9th St Pavement Renovation CON DPW $ 2,216,627 $ 2,216,627 28th Ave Pavement Renovation CON DPW $ 1,174,260 $ 1,174,260 Chinatown Broadway St DES DPW $ 650,000 $ 650,000 Mansell Corridor Project DES RPD $ 162,268 $ 39,960 $ 202,228 Mansell Corridor Project CON RPD $ 707,199 $ 1,618,425 $ 2,325,624 McAllister St Pavement Renovation CON DPW $ 2,210,000 $ 2,210,000 Waller St Pavement Renovation CON DPW $ 1,299,747 $ 910,253 $ 2,210,000 Brannan St Pavement Renovation CON DPW $ 2,210,000 $ 2,210,000 Pedestrian Safety Subtotal Recommended $ 4,040,887 $ 2,372,268 $ 747,159 $ 2,918,172 $ 3,120,253 $ 13,198,739 (Over)/Under $ 318,001 $ (162,182) $ 1,462,927 $ (708,086) $ (910,167) $ 493 Cumulative Remaining $ 318,001 $ 155,819 $ 1,618,746 $ 910,660 $ 493 $ 493 Category % Allocation 3 50% Recommended % 50% Funds Available in Category $ 2,179,444 $ 1,105,043 $ 1,105,043 $ 1,105,043 $ 1,105,043 $ 6,599,616 Arguello Gap Closure DES Presidio $ 75,000 $ 75,000 Arguello Gap Closure CON Presidio $ 275,000 $ 275,000 Mid-Block Crossings on Minna/7th & Natoma/8th DES SFCTA $ 55,000 $ 55,000 $ 110,000 Mid-Block Crossings on Minna/7th & Natoma/8th CON SFCTA $ 310,000 $ 310,000 $ 620,000 Franklin St Pedestrian Signals DES SFMTA $ 415,000 $ 415,000 $ 830,000 Franklin St Pedestrian Signals CON SFMTA $ 305,000 $ 415,000 $ 720,000 Pedestrian Countdown Signals CON SFMTA $ 841,500 $ 841,500 $ 1,683,000 Winston Drive Pedestrian s DES SFSU $ 250,000 $ 250,000 Winston Drive Pedestrian s CON SFSU $ 300,000 $ 200,000 $ 200,000 $ 200,000 $ 900,000 McAllister St Campus Streetscape CON UC Hastings $ 800,000 $ 800,000 Gough St Pedestrian Signals DES/CON SFMTA $ 337,000 $ 337,000 Subtotal Recommended $ 1,636,500 $ 2,501,500 $ 1,725,000 $ 537,000 $ 200,000 $ 6,600,000 (Over)/Under $ 542,944 $ (1,396,457) $ (619,957) $ 568,043 $ 905,043 $ (384) Cumulative Remaining $ 542,944 $ (853,513) $ (1,473,470) $ (905,427) $ (384) $ (384) Category % Allocation 3 25% Recommended % 25% and Mobility s Funds Available in Category $ 2,179,444 $ 1,105,043 $ 1,105,043 $ 1,105,043 $ 1,105,043 $ 6,599,616 Civic Center BART/Muni Bike Station CON BART $ 100,000 $ 148,000 $ 248,000 Phelan Loop Pedestrian Connector DES City College $ 65,000 $ 65,000 Phelan Loop Pedestrian Connector CON City College $ 872,000 $ 872,000 Hunters View Phase II: Transit Connection DES MOH $ 97,500 $ 97,500 $ 195,000 Hunters View Phase II: Transit Connection CON MOH $ 519,995 $ 1,129,999 $ 1,649,994 24th St Mission BART Plaza and Pedestrian s CON BART $ 686,797 $ 531,014 $ 1,217,811 Rapid Network Placeholder DES/CON SFMTA $ 287,000 $ 965,000 $ 1,099,919 $ 2,351,919 Subtotal Recommended $ 262,500 $ 2,324,292 $ 1,948,013 $ 965,000 $ 1,099,919 $ 6,599,724 (Over)/Under $ 1,916,944 $ (1,219,249) $ (842,970) $ 140,043 $ 5,124 $ (108) Cumulative Remaining $ 1,916,944 $ 697,695 $ (145,275) $ (5,232) $ (108) $ (108) See Table 1 for footnotes. Category % Allocation 3 25% Recommended % 25% Total Recommended $ 5,939,887 $ 7,198,060 $ 4,420,172 $ 4,420,172 $ 4,420,172 $ 26,398,463 (Over)/Under $ 2,777,888 $ (2,777,888) $ - $ - $ - $ - Cumulative $ 2,777,888 $ - $ - $ - $ - Total Available Funds $ 8,717,775 $ 4,420,172 $ 4,420,172 $ 4,420,172 $ 4,420,172 $ 26,398,463 M:\CAC\Meetings\Memo to CAC\2012\09-Sep 2012\Prop AA\Prop AA ATT 4 Print 11x17 2

14 Attachment 5. Prop AA Candidate Projects Brief Project Descriptions and Recommendation Rationale 1 Street Repair and Reconstruction - Recommended for Funding Number Category Project Name Brief Project Description 2 District(s) Sponsor 3 Phase(s) Total Project Cost Total Prop AA Amount First Fiscal Year Rationale 1 Street Repair & Reconstruction 9th Street Pavement Renovation Construction of 2" thick asphalt concrete wearing surface over 8" thick concrete base repair on 9th Street, from Market Street to Division Street and on Bryant Street, from 18th Street to Division Street. Work also includes construction of about 100 ADA compliant curb ramps, sidewalk repairs, parking strip repairs and gutter repairs. Project includes intersection improvements at 9th and Folsom Streets to be funded with Road Repaving and Street Safety Bond funds. 6,9,10 DPW CON $ 2,710,343 $ 2,216, /13 Categorically Exempt. Project coordinated with 9th Street/Folsom Street pedestrian improvements funded with 2011 Road Repaving and Street Safety Bond. 2 Street Repair & Reconstruction 28th Avenue Pavement Renovation Construction of 2" thick asphalt concrete wearing surface over 8" thick concrete base repair on 9th Street, from Market Street to Division Street and on Bryant Street, from 18th Street to Division Street. Work also includes construction of about 100 ADA compliant curb ramps, sidewalk repairs, parking strip repairs and gutter repairs. Project includes intersection improvements at 9th and Folsom Streets to be funded with Road Repaving and Street Safety Bond funds. 4 DPW CON $ 2,599,973 $ 1,174, /13 Project partially funded to fit within cash flow capacity available in FYs 12/13-13/14. DPW will backfill (e.g. with gas tax subventions). Of the street projects proposed in the first 3 years, this had no evident linkages to a community based planning process and the weakest proposal for complete street elements (e.g. a continental crosswalk at a TBD location). DPW indicates the project contract can be awarded in November Street Repair & Reconstruction Chinatown Broadway Street Design (Columbus Avenue to the Broadway Tunnel) Removal of eastbound tow-away lane. Bulb-outs added at all corners. Special paving at intersections. Last block of project (Broadway Tunnel to Powell Street) to include new medians and curb work. Streetscape amenities along the corridor to include street trees, lighting, and seating. Bus stop improvements at two locations to include bus bulbs, bus shelter, seating, and signage. 3 DPW Design $ 7,150,390 $ 650, /13 Strong complete streets elements and community based planning process (e.g. Chinatown Broadway Streetscape Design Plan). M:\CAC\Meetings\Memo to CAC\2012\09-Sep 2012\Prop AA\Prop AA ATT 5 Page 1 of 10

15 Attachment 5. Prop AA Candidate Projects Brief Project Descriptions and Recommendation Rationale 1 Street Repair and Reconstruction - Recommended for Funding Number Category Project Name Brief Project Description 2 District(s) Sponsor 3 Phase(s) Total Project Cost Total Prop AA Amount First Fiscal Year Rationale 4 Street Repair & Reconstruction McAllister Street Pavement Renovation Construction of 2" thick asphalt concrete wearing surface over 8" thick concrete base repair on McAllister Street, from Polk Street to Franklin Street and from Gough Street to Divisadero Street. Work also includes construction of about 80 ADA compliant curb ramps, sidewalk repairs, parking strip repairs and gutter repairs. Project includes bicycle and pedestrian improvements to be funded with Prop B street bond funds at TBD locations. 5,6 DPW CON $ 2,885,000 $ 2,210, /14 With changes to Mansell (see above), McAllister (the only street project proposed for FY 2013/14) can fit within available cash flow capacity. Categorically Exempt. Project coordinated with pedestrian and bicycle enhancements based on TEP and the 2009 Bicycle Plan. Seeking clarification from the SFMTA on public process to provide input on TBD pedestrian and bicycle improvements. 5 Street Repair & Reconstruction Mansell Corridor Project Prop AA funds will be used to repave Mansell Street from University Street to Dublin Street. Coordinated streetscape project includes narrowing street width; adding bicycle lanes; improving signage; redesigning intersections; improving pedestrian safety around schools; adding a bulb-out at Mansell Street and Sunnydale Avenue; adding crosswalks, bus shelters, and sidewalks, or pedestrian paths along some or all of street; and adding street lights. 9,10,11 RPD Design, CON $ 5,751,728 $ 2,527, /14 Strong complete streets elements and community based planning process (e.g. project developed, in part, through McLaren Park Assessment Workshop process (2010)). Recommended programming has lower Prop AA amount than original ask since RPD shifted complete streets elements to OBAG/Prop K for funding (with MTA/DPW support) and shifts the first year to FY 13/14 per refined schedule. 6 Street Repair & Reconstruction Waller Pavement Renovation Phase 2 Construction of 2" thick asphalt concrete wearing surface over 8" thick concrete base repair on Waller Street, from Octavia Street to Laguna Street and from Buchanan Street to Broderick Street. Work also includes construction of about 80 ADA compliant curb ramps, sidewalk repairs, parking strip repairs and gutter repairs. Project includes TBD streetscape improvements to be funded with Prop B street bond funds. 5,8 DPW CON $ 2,530,000 $ 2,210, /16 Categorically Exempt. Project to be coordinated with future Wiggle streetscape and pedestrian improvements funded with Prop B street bond funds. Only street project proposed in FY 2015/16; provides time for the public to provide input on TBD complete streets elements. 7 Street Repair & Reconstruction Brannan Street Pavement Renovation Construction of 2" thick asphalt concrete wearing surface over 8" thick concrete base repair on Brannan Street, from the Embarcadero to 8th Street. Work also includes construction of about 80 ADA compliant curb ramps, sidewalk repairs, parking strip repairs and gutter repairs. Project includes TBD pedestrian and/or streetscape improvements. 6 DPW CON $ 4,572,436 $ 2,210, /17 Categorically Exempt. Only street project proposed in FY 2016/17; provides time for the public to provide input on TBD complete streets elements. TOTAL $ 25,489,527 $ 13,198,739 M:\CAC\Meetings\Memo to CAC\2012\09-Sep 2012\Prop AA\Prop AA ATT 5 Page 2 of 10

16 Attachment 5. Prop AA Candidate Projects Brief Project Descriptions and Recommendation Rationale 1 Street Repair and Reconstruction - Not Recommended for Funding Number Category Project Name Brief Project Description 2 District(s) Sponsor 3 Phase(s) Total Project Cost Total Prop AA Amount First Fiscal Year Rationale 1 Street Repair & Reconstruction Dolores Street Pavement Renovation Construction of 2" thick asphalt concrete wearing surface over 8" thick concrete base repair on Dolores Street, from Market Street to 21st Street and from 25th Street to Cesar Chavez. Work also includes construction of about 200 ADA compliant curb ramps, sidewalk repairs, parking strip repairs and gutter repairs. Project includes intersection improvements (e.g., pedestrian refuge islands, crosswalk treatments, corner bulb-outs) at Dolores and 18th Streets to be funded with Prop B street bond funds. 8 DPW CON $ 6,200,000 $ 2,210, /15 oversubscribed. Project dropped to fund higher ranked projects (Broadway and Mansell) and comparably ranked projects that can be delivered earlier and to fit within available cash flow capacity. TOTAL $ 6,200,000 $ 2,210,000 M:\CAC\Meetings\Memo to CAC\2012\09-Sep 2012\Prop AA\Prop AA ATT 5 Page 3 of 10